Maurice Green

The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for alleged physical abuse of deaf students.

The member brought a motion to stay the proceedings, arguing delay and procedural unfairness.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement.

The Discipline Committee ordered the proceedings stayed on conditions, including that the member resign his membership, surrender his teaching certificates, and undertake not to teach in Ontario.

The applicant, a bargaining unit president, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance concerned a disciplinary letter placed on his file by the employer for unauthorized use of photocopying facilities.

The union had negotiated a settlement that replaced the original letter with a less severe version and subsequently withdrew the grievance.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's decision not to advance the grievance to arbitration was reasonable given the minor nature of the discipline, the applicant's prior history, and the union's success in mitigating the letter's contents.

The respondent school board applied for an order of costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after several allegations in a human rights complaint were dismissed.

The Board of Inquiry found that while a partial dismissal of a complaint satisfies the jurisdictional pre-condition for awarding costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, the dismissed allegations were not trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Commission's conduct of the case did not cause undue hardship to the respondent.

The application for costs was dismissed.

This is a decision on remedies following a finding that the respondent school boards discriminated against the complainant and subjected him to reprisals in two job competitions.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the successor school boards to pay special damages for wage loss and relocation expenses, general damages for loss of the right to freedom from discrimination, and damages for mental anguish.

The Board also ordered public interest remedies, including the posting of the decision, the development of recruitment policies incorporating reprisal protection, and notice to the complainant of future vacancies.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and place of origin, as well as reprisal, after being denied two positions as Assistant Superintendent for a new French-language school board.

The Board of Inquiry found that in the first competition run by the Metro Board, the complainant was denied the position as a reprisal for having filed a previous human rights complaint.

In the second competition run by CÉFCUT, the Board found that the selection process was tainted by discrimination on the basis of place of origin, as some committee members were predisposed against the complainant because he was not a Franco-Ontarian.

However, the ultimate selection decision in the second competition was not discriminatory, as the successful candidate was chosen based on superior experiential qualifications.

The complaint was upheld in part.

The respondent school boards brought a motion to rule that the Board of Inquiry Interim Rules of Practice did not apply to the hearing and to quash summonses served on their Directors of Education.

The adjudicator held that the 1994 amendments to the Human Rights Code and the Interim Rules applied because the hearing had been reassigned to a new panel.

The adjudicator set aside the summonses as overly broad but ordered the respondents to disclose specific, arguably relevant documents relating to the disputed job competitions, including minutes of meetings where decisions were made.

The adjudicator rejected the respondents' claim of social privilege over the board minutes and found the claim of solicitor-client privilege premature.

The applicant union filed a grievance against the respondent employer.

In a prior decision, the Board determined liability but remained seized on damages.

Before the damages issue could be resolved, the original Vice-Chair died.

A new panel, with a substituted Vice-Chair and the original Board members, was convened.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to substitute Vice-Chairs and that the matter must recommence from the beginning.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to continue, as damages appeared to be a discrete issue from liability.

The matter was relisted to determine if the prior decision was sufficiently clear to assess damages without rehearing evidence.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to pay maturity and promotional salary increases after the expiry of the collective agreement.

The employer argued that its historical practice during freeze periods was not to pay such increases, establishing a privilege or 'business as usual'.

The majority of the Board upheld the complaint, finding that the clear language of the expired collective agreement governed the freeze period, and the employer's past practice during previous freezes did not override the terms of the agreement.

The employer was ordered to pay the increases.

The employers and bargaining agents disputed the number of job classes and pay equity plans required for elementary school teachers under the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

The employers argued that all elementary teachers constituted a single job class and that separate pay equity plans were required for male and female teachers.

The Tribunal held that elementary teachers are divided into seven distinct job classes based on their different educational qualifications and corresponding salary ranges.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that a single pay equity plan was appropriate for all elementary teachers, as they form a single bargaining unit represented jointly by their respective branch affiliates.

The Tribunal also permitted limited intervenor status to the secondary school teachers' federation to provide historical context on teacher compensation grids.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for first contract arbitration after the employer, a boarding school, proposed a "notional recall" of striking teachers as a condition of settlement.

The proposal would have paid a select group of teachers but kept replacement workers in the classrooms until the end of the school year, excluding key union organizers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's proposal was deliberately obstructive, lacked reasonable justification, and was motivated by a desire to avoid concluding a collective agreement and returning union supporters to work.

The Board held that the employer violated sections 15, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the excluded union organizers.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the respondent private school failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement and adopted uncompromising bargaining positions without reasonable justification regarding management rights, seniority, and layoffs.

The Board found that while the bargaining process was unsuccessful, the respondent had reasonable justification for its positions, given its financial deficit, declining enrolment, and the need to remain competitive with other private schools.

The application was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all occasional teachers in the respondent's secondary panel in the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The respondent disputed the composition of the bargaining unit, arguing against the separation of secondary and elementary panel occasional teachers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the secondary panel occasional teachers constituted an appropriate bargaining unit, consistent with its established practice of mirroring the historical dichotomy between elementary and secondary school teachers.

A pre-hearing representation vote resulted in more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in favour of the applicant, and the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of occasional teachers employed in the respondent's six French language secondary schools.

The respondent argued that the unit should include all occasional teachers across all its secondary schools to avoid fragmentation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the occasional teachers in the French language schools shared a distinct and definable community of interest, making the proposed subdivision an appropriate bargaining unit.

A Board Officer was appointed to inquire into the employee list to determine the exact composition of the bargaining unit.